xspider1 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Again with the personal stuff? Please give that a rest as it has nothing to do with your failed attempts to cast doubts on the authenticity of the PGf subject. In one post you tell us that Patty should not have been filmed because Bigfoot are supposed to be stealthier than that and now you are informing us that creatures cannot always be stealthy. Your arguments don't make any sense and it's fairly clear that you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starling Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 On 28/07/2017 at 3:42 AM, MIB said: Quick thumbs-up to ioyza, JKH, and LeafTalker ... absolutely agree on the moniker "long term witness". As you have almost certainly observed, in "habituation" situations, it is more often than not the humans, not the bigfoots, whose behavior is conditioned / changed. We're the habituated, not the habituator. One of you mentioned Enoch ... when Mike overstepped boundaries, he's the one that got pitched in the creek, not the other way around. He was the one whose behavior was being conditioned. I'm ok with the term habituation so long as the irony is recognized, also because when it refers to the setting, it remains accurate no matter who is being habituated. Such people are amazing resources, especially for each other, but I find what they are willing to share, when they are willing to share, very useful myself. When the pieces fit together and match the existing parts of the puzzle ... the pieces fit together and match the existing parts of the puzzle. It just is what it is. MIB The major crack in this thinking is that proponents adapt the logic to fit their theories not the other way around. If long term witnesses were a thing then simple human nature dictates we'd have some quality photographic evidence in the public domain instead of the tiresome a-bit-too-indistinct-and-not-quite-enough rubbish we have now. Where's there's a demand there's a way. If paparazzi can publish a photo of Jackie Kennedy's bush then someone who spends 'quality time' with these creatures would snap and release a 'money shot.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) Gosh, don't forget the old: Although I've plenty to prove bigfoot exists, I chose not to share with modern science because bla, bla, bla. Although I could easily lure the creatures into camera traps, I choose not to do so because bla, bla, bla. You don't have the correct mental aspect of it all, as the creatures know if you've been naughty or nice. Christmas is a trip with them, eh? You can never know the beautiful feelings of knowing bigfoot, because you're just not hip. I know more, but you will never know what I know. Bla, bla, bla. Oh, and the really angry MIB is kinda funny. Hello, MIB. How ya doin'? Are you OK? Edited August 1, 2017 by Incorrigible1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 http://bizarrebigfoot.blogspot.com/2016/01/bigfoot-on-game-cameras-why-is-this-so.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Awesome read.Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Other than the Jacobs creature, has there been even a half-decent trailcam pic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 You didn't like the Melissa Hovey picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 On 7/26/2017 at 11:04 AM, Incorrigible1 said: If a "researcher" fails to carry a simple dslr camera into the woods, that tells you they're not truly a "researcher." Can someone give me an example of a "simple dslr" for less than $600 that has a manual focus like the Minolta 35mm camera I use to have (which took phenomenal pictures)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 58 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said: Can someone give me an example of a "simple dslr" for less than $600 that has a manual focus like the Minolta 35mm camera I use to have (which took phenomenal pictures)? https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-Digital-Camera-18-55mm/dp/B00IB1BTWI/ref=sr_1_4?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1501766199&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+dslr Canon EOS Rebel T5 Digital SLR Camera Kit with EF-S 18-55mm IS II Lens 4.7 out of 5 stars 632 customer reviews | 511 answered questions #1 Best Sellerin DSLR Cameras List Price: $549.00 Price: $348.00 & FREE Shipping You Save: $201.00 (37%) Focus Type Includes Manual Focus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 10 hours ago, LeafTalker said: You didn't like the Melissa Hovey picture? LOL, that's why I asked, I couldn't remember any. But yeah, it's a good pic, whether it be a bigfoot or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Yeah, I think that picture is a good one, too. There's actually a lot of good pictures and videos out there, but after the paid and unpaid skeptics get through ragging on them, they seem to lose the cache they used to have. Then you start to realize how many paid voices there really are, and you realize you have to take a second look at everything you've dismissed. I remember sending apology emails to friends: "I'm so sorry, ignore that one; it was proven to be a hoax." Then I realized it had NEVER been proven to be a hoax; some num-num just SAID it was a hoax, and I presumed I just didn't know the history behind that particular photo or video. Now I have the history, and now I know there is no "proof" -- in 99.999% of the cases -- that anything has been hoaxed. I've finally woken up, and I realize that more photos and videos are real than are not. Enjoy all the photos you see, Rockape. There's a waaaaaay better than even chance they are completely authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/02/bill-munns-creature-fx-expert-weighs-in.html http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/02/lee-romaire-creature-fx-artist-for.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Thanks for confirming what I'm saying. One expert says, "If it is fake, it does represent a fair amount of both skill and expense on the part of the fabricator." "If"????? Guess he doesn't know, either. Hmmm. How interesting! An expert, and he doesn't know! Doesn't sound like he's offering "proof" of anything, to me. And good for him!!!! He's an honest person, so he can't do that, in all good conscience. Expert #2 says, "The fur is simply too uniform in color, density and direction to be authentic..." I don't know what to say about this person. The picture shows EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of every single thing he's saying. Like I said, if anybody thinks any "proof" has been offered in any but the tiniest, tiniest fraction of cases that some photo or another is a "hoax", they're mistaken. Oh -- in my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Right! You cannot PROVE anything your saying as your "opinion". Just as the experts can only offer their "opinion". Which is why.....(I'll repeat it again for the millionth time) photo and video evidence has NO value in the search for Bigfoot. Save your camera money until you can buy a rifle with an adequate cartridge to take down big game, and buy that instead. The rifle unlike the camera? Will provide proof that needs no OPINION that Bigfoot is real. It will also cut down on anyone's desire to hoax you while your out in the woods. Because their 800 dollar Bigfoot suit will double as a body bag on the way to the coroners office. We should treat all photos and video from this date forward as a hoax. We can just stop the bickering now. And put all of our energy and resources as a community into proving Bigfoot is real once and for all. The pro kill people can bring rifles and the non pro kill people can set out hair traps, and mosquito traps, dig for bones or whatever. This is a dead end road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 I didn't read your reply too carefully, norseman, but my post was directed at Rockape. He said he wasn't sure what that picture was of. I said, you can be pretty sure it was a Bigfoot, and I explained why I thought that. I am speaking person-to-person, about what each person's confidence level can be about the authenticity of any given photo, based on both my own knowing, and my experience as an observer of 'the community'. I don't care whether 'science' ever gets 'proof' of anything, but I do feel sorry that people are so fearful and suspicious that they have to wait for approval from Big Brother before they're able to trust what they see with their own eyes. And I'm not saying Rockape is fearful and suspicious; he is far from that, which facilitates conversations that can help people who ARE having trouble trusting their own experiences and their own instincts. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts